Beware the ‘Independent’ Label, Democrats Use New Branding Strategy


This photo says it all.

Remember the expression, “Look for the Union label?”

These days, “Union” is a dirty word – synonymous with “big government,” “unruly overdemanding government workers” and of course, Democrats.

Using the label “Independent,” Democrats are now attempting to fool voters by taking the “new & improved” branding strategy.

Don’t be fooled. They’re still the same old liberal, nihilistic, big-government, tax and spend amoral creatures.


Comments

  1. It was an even more effective strategy in a non-partisan election where the word “Democrat” didn’t even have to appear.

  2. “‘Union’is a dirty word”

    It is? Those “STANTON UNION OWNED ===>” mini-signs proved ineffective, as did the year-long campaign to demonize unions (See: Contreras, Janet, Frederick, Eric, Gullett, Wes). Didn’t seem poisonous to Question 2 in Ohio either.

    I’m not sure it’s as dirty as you hope it is.

    • Conservative American says:

      Hi, Klute! :-)

      From my perspective, unions aren’t inherently good nor are they inherently evil. It depends on what they are doing at any given point in time.

      Clearly, there was a time when workers were being badly abused and exploited and unions courageously stood up and secured better, safer working conditions and a living wage. It is also well known that the Communists sought to use labor unions to further their own destructive ends. The question is, what is the primary focus of unions now? I think it’s a mixed bag.

      There are attempts, I admit, by Republicans to roll back many of the basic, beneficial and reasonable gains made by unions for workers. At the same time, many unions are pushing a radical left wing agenda. What to do about that?

      Attempting to strong arm unions won’t work. The Ohio legislature passed laws severly limiting strike and collective bargaining rights and that legislation was overturned by ballot initiative. So, what will work?

      There is no question, especially in this economy, that Republicans need to take a much more enlightened approach to dealing with unions. They should begin by showing that Republicans are on the side of working Americans, something they are refusing to do. They are refusing to do it by failing to support legislation to stop the outsourcing of jobs, for example.

      The best way to prevent unions from being exploited by the extreme left is to take away the issues which resonate with union members and union supporters. That means seeing to it that workers are given a fair shake. When people feel that they are being treated fairly and reasonably, they aren’t motivated to back extreme positions. When they feel that they are being screwed, they become exquisitely vulnerable to being exploited for nefarious purposes.

      That having been said, it is also true that Obama hasn’t done anything effective for American workers either. While Republicans are refusing to address outsourcing, Obama’s immigration policies have resulted in illegal aliens holding 5% of the jobs in America. So, we’re getting it from both ends!

      From my perspective, both Democrats and “moderate” so called “Republicans” are both backing a “One World”, multinational agenda at the expense of America and of American citizens. Labor unions are largely backing the “progressive” Democrat agenda and Republicans are providing the fuel to permit the unions to have success with that. Not too bright, IMHO.

      I have been in positions where I had to be a union member. I saw no benefit for the dues I was paying and I saw grossly incompetent coworkers, who should have been gone, remain in their postions because of union intervention. So I presonally am not a fan of unions as I have experienced them in action. On the other hand, an assualt on workers, an attempt to turn back the clock regarding working conditions, benefits and wages will only serve to further strengthen and entrench unions.

      Republicans need to rethink their game plan if they seek to curb the radicalization of unions. They need to offer something so that unions are seen as less needed or not needed at all. Attempting to strong arm unions is a failed approach.

      • TruConserv says:

        “From my perspective, both Democrats and “moderate” so called “Republicans” are both backing a “One World”, multinational agenda at the expense of America and of American citizens. ”

        “Obama’s immigration policies have resulted in illegal aliens holding 5% of the jobs in America”

        First an observation:

        I sit opposite unions at meditations on a somewhat regular basis. Nothing I have ever witnessed in either my preparation or my hearings has ever revealed a “one-world multinational agenda.”

        Most unions are xenophobic and contemptuous of workers in other nations, particularly those under the same employer.

        Now, some facts:

        The number of illegal workers has dropped during the Obama administration, according to Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.

        “The population of illegal immigrants leveled off after peaking in 2007 at 12 million, then dropping sharply over two years to 11.1 million in 2009, according to the report, which is based on census data. The declines occurred primarily because fewer people from Mexico and Central America came illegally to the United States, Pew concluded.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/us/02immig.html

        Under Obama the US now has more “boots on the ground” patroling the border than ever before, double what we had in 2004. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/10/barack-obama/obama-says-border-patrol-has-doubled-number-agents/

        Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other administration. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576639243590522156.html

        Now some commentary.

        Does this mean Obama is doing a good job – heck no. It just means that if one wants to be taken seriously, one has to express credible claims. As a matter of fifth-grade rhetoric, if I can deny your predicate, I can deny your conclusion.

        Similarly, the author of this drive-by article (not ConA’s post) called democrats “amoral creatures.” Not even human, and possessing no morals.

        That does not play in Peoria …

        When we let hyperbole and dehumanization triumph over facts, logic and reason, we fail the country.

        I love a clean fight against the liberals. Wish some here were up to the challenge.

        • Conservative American says:

          TC wrote: “I sit opposite unions at meditations on a somewhat regular basis. Nothing I have ever witnessed in either my preparation or my hearings has ever revealed a “one-world multinational agenda.”

          If you read what I wrote, and what you quoted you, will immediately see that I never said that unions support a “One World”, multinational agenda.

          TC wrote: “Most unions are xenophobic and contemptuous of workers in other nations, particularly those under the same employer.” You are certainly entitled to you subjective opinion. This is, of course, the language of the liberal left. Those who oppose homosexual “marriage” are called “homophobic”.

          Now, some facts:

          “34,448 Illegal Immigrants Spared Deportation”

          “In a perplexing development ignored by the mainstream media, the Obama Administration suspended tens of thousands of deportations last year and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano lied to a Senate committee to cover up the astounding figure.”

          “Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee that has oversight over the Department of Homeland Security that her agency halted the deportation of only 900 illegal immigrants in fiscal year 2010. She did admit that the figure could be higher because it excludes “deferred action” granted to illegal immigrants for “humanitarian” reasons.”

          “Not surprisingly, Madame Secretary never indicated how much higher the figure could be, which may lead many to conclude that she purposely deceived federal lawmakers. It turns out that the Obama Administration halted the deportation of 34,448 illegal immigrants last year, according to Homeland Security figures obtained independently by a Senator (Charles Grassley of Iowa) who sits on the Judiciary Committee.”

          “After the Senate hearing, which took place last month in Washington D.C., Napolitano’s own staff corrected her atrocious lie, according to Senator Grassley’s press secretary, who provided Judicial Watch with the accurate number. According to Homeland Security figures provided to Senator Grassley’s staff, the combined deferred action and paroles of illegal immigrants in 2010 amounted to 34,448.”

          “This appears to be part of the administration’s secret amnesty plan in case Congress doesn’t pass legislation to legalize the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants. Devised by political appointees at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the plan aims to enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.”

          This includes delaying deportation indefinitely (“deferred action”), granting green cards, allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. indefinitely while they seek legal status (known as “parole in place”) and expanding the definition of “extreme hardships” so any illegal alien could meet the criteria and remain in the country.

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/may/34-448-illegal-immigrants-spared-deportation

          Here is the actual memo from the Department of Homeland Security addressing how to implement “immigration reform” by circumventing Congress.

          http://www2.nationalreview.com/memo_UCIS_072910.html

          • TruConserv says:

            I don’t know what you wrote after this bit of craziness:

            “Most unions are xenophobic and contemptuous of workers in other nations, particularly those under the same employer.” You are certainly entitled to you subjective opinion. This is, of course, the language of the liberal left. Those who oppose homosexual “marriage” are called “homophobic”.”

            The liberal left typically supports unions, not opposes them. I use the word xenophobic because I work with multinational corporations and the union reps in the state that I work with have a genuine fear of foreigner and foreign work relationships.

            In other words, I used a word with precision.

            In contrast, you go all black-helicopter on us and try to connect a complaint about unions into somehow being secret liberal code.

            At that point I quit reading. You only validated my point – when you spout off like a crazy person, people don’t give your ideas complete consideration.

            Next?

          • Conservative American says:

            TC wrote: “The liberal left typically supports unions, not opposes them. I use the word xenophobic because I work with multinational corporations and the union reps in the state that I work with have a genuine fear of foreigner and foreign work relationships. In other words, I used a word with precision.”

            No, TC, you chose to use emotionally charged words with a negative connotation to pass off as fact something which is merely a subjective opinion of yours.

            TC wrote: “In contrast, you go all black-helicopter on us and try to connect a complaint about unions into somehow being secret liberal code.”

            ROFL! You attempt to use that tired old liberal tactic in almost every series of exchanges we have, LOL. Don’t quote what your opponent has said, interpret what he has said, creating a weak straw man, and then attack the straw man which you have created. I’ve busted you on this countless times and as often as you try to pull it off, I will continue to bust you on it, LOL! ;-)

            TC wrote: “At that point I quit reading. You only validated my point…”

            ROFL! To the contrary, TC. You only validate MY point. I have stated many times that your responses to my comments show that you never actually read my entire comment. You just verified, out of your own mouth, that you do, in fact, fail to read my comments in their entirety. When it is clear that you haven’t read my comment, and I respost, you complain about “cut and paste”. Maybe if you actually read my comment in it’s entirety BEFORE replying, I wouldn’t have to “cut and paste”!

            Next!

            • Yea, again, when you start trying to connect imaginary dots to link me back to being a liberal, I just quit reading. As soon as you start with the personal attacks, I simply skip to the bottom of your post to hit reply to let you know, as always:

              When you’re ready to have a informed discussion without all the crazy talk and personal attacks, I’ll be happy to consider what you write.

              For now, its just PLONK.

              • Conservative American says:

                ROFL! You have proven countless times that you are a liberal masquerading as a conservative, LOL! Do you REALLY think that you can fool conservatives? No, you can’t.

                It isn’t that you quit reading, it’s that you never read. When you reply to one of my comments it’s clear that you haven’t read it. You have admitted that several times now.

                No, don’t even try to claim “personal attacks”. That’s a bunch of garbage.

                TC wrote: “When you’re ready to have a informed discussion without all the crazy talk and personal attacks, I’ll be happy to consider what you write.”

                ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are accusing me of what YOU do, LOL! What’s the matter, can’t take the heat, TC?

                Just “PLONK”, huh? Do you even know what that word means? It means cheap wine, LOL! Only you’re the one who is whining!

        • Conservative American says:

          More facts:

          “Border Patrol Data Contradicts Napolitano’s Testimony That U.S. Has ‘Effective Control of the Great Majority’ of Both Northern and Southern Borders”

          “By Edwin Mora
          February 9, 2011″

          “(CNSNews.com) — Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, contradicts testimony that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano gave the House Homeland Security Commmittee on Wednesday in which she said that the U.S. government had secured “effective control of the great majority” of the both the northern and southern borders.”

          “According to the data that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has provided to CNSNews.com, as of Sept. 30, 2010 (the end of fiscal year 2010), the U.S. government had established “effective control” of only about 44 percent (873 miles) of the 1,994-mile-long southwest border and only about 2 percent (69 miles) of the approximately 4,000 mile-long northern border.”

          http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/border-patrol-data-contradicts-napolitanos-testimony-us-has-effective-control-great

          So we see that Janet Napolitano, the head of Obama’s U. S. Department of Homeland Security, has repeatedly lied and/or misrepresented the “facts” to Congress regarding both deportations and the security of our borders. In both cases she sought to give the appearance that the Obama administration was more effective than it claimed in addressing illegal immigration and illegal aliens.

          • TruConserv says:

            As I said – “has Obama does a good job – heck no.”

            My point remains, when you toss out demonstratively false claims, people disregard you.

            You make the argument that Obama is at fault for the illegal workers here and that he has done nothing to secure the border.

            The truth is different: we have less illegals now than before he took office, he’s increased the border patrol and he’s deported more illegals than any other.

            Now, a principled conservative can take all that information and elect to argue:
            “that’s a good start, but more needs to be done and Obama is not the guy to do it. He’s had his chance, he failed.”

            That is an argument I can support. But, when we let the far-right pervade out debates with lies, we always lose the discussion. As a principled conservative, I’m tired of it.

            I hope that clears things up for you.

            • Conservative American says:

              TC wrote: “My point remains, when you toss out demonstratively false claims, people disregard you.”

              ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, TC, when you find yourself steadily losing ground in a debate, you progressively lose it and resort to speaking for “people”; a totally ineffective attempt to fabricate multitudes on your side which exist only in your own mind. You don’t speak for “people”, you speak only for TC. Have you been elected spokesman of some organization, LOL!

              I have provided evidence that Janet Napolitano has repeatedly lied and/or misrepresented the facts when testifying before the Congress of The United States regarding the numbers of illegal aliens deported and the degree to which the border has been secured. The false claims of the Obama administration regarding the bang up job they have done with illegal immigration and illegal aliens have entirely destroyed their credibility on the subject. I have a lot more evidence along those lines if it is needed to prove the point.

              TC wrote: “The truth is different: we have less illegals now than before he took office, he’s increased the border patrol and he’s deported more illegals than any other.”

              And what proof do you have that we have fewer illegals because of Obama’s actions?

              “Undocumented couple leave SB 1070 behind”

              “by Daniel González – Jun. 27, 2010 12:00 AM
              The Arizona Republic”

              “Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of families have fled Arizona, abandoning homes and apartments in already struggling neighborhoods. Many more are planning to leave. Some have returned to Mexico. Many are relocating to neighboring states, many of which may soon try to adopt laws similar to Arizona’s.”

              TC wrote: “The truth is different: we have less illegals now than before he took office, he’s increased the border patrol and he’s deported more illegals than any other.”

              No, TC, the truth is that the Obama administration lies to make it appear that they are being more effective than they actually are in removing illegal aliens. Janet Napoltiano has repeatedly lied and/or misrepresented the facts, even when testifying before the U. S. Congress.

              TC wrote: “That is an argument I can support. But, when we let the far-right pervade out debates with lies, we always lose the discussion.”

              No, TC, you always lose the discussion. Who is lying? I have provided evidence that it is Janet Napolitano who lies and/or mispresents the facts, even when testifying before the U. S. Congress regarding deportations and the degree to which the border is secured.

              I hope that clears things up for you. ;-)

              • TruConserv says:

                The proof that Obama has done more to reduce the influx of illegals is two-fold:

                1) he oversaw the doubling of the “boots on the ground” of the border patrol, and
                2) he has set a record for deportations.

                While there may have been thousands leaving because of Arpaio, the national drop is measured in seven-digits.

                The funny thing is that you keep railing about Janet N. as if I care to defend her. I don’t. As I wrote, above, twice, I don’t think Obama has done a good job on immigration.

                My point, the one you continue to evade is that we can give the devil his due and still be opposed to the devil. (My demonization of Obama is figurative, not literal – I know how some of the lunatic fringe actually think Obama is the anti-Christ.)

                Again, a principled conservative argument can go something like this: it was a good start, but hardly enough. Obama failed to fully appreciate, measure and address the illegal immigration crises. He had his chance, he failed. We need new leadership.

                The un-principled argument is that one put forward by you and GED Jane – Obama has done nothing, he’s ignored the issue, he’s open borders, he’s in the pocket of the international one-world conspiracy.

                Each of those claims is demonstratively false, except the last one. And that’s only because you can’t prove a negative. (Plus, it’s a bat-*&*& crazy claim.)

                So, if you want people to take you seriously, don’t predicate your arguments on lies. It’s a pretty simple approach — give it a try, you just might like it.

              • Conservative American says:

                The proof that the Obama administration lies and/or misrepresents it’s achievements with regard to illegal alien deportation and how secure our borders are is twofold:

                1 – Janet Napolitano lied and/or misrepresented to Congress the number of illegal aliens deported.

                2 – Janet Napolitano lied and/or misrepresented to Congress that the U. S. has “effective control of the great majority” of both our southern and northern borders.

                The point is that the Obama administration has no credibility whatsoever regarding illegal alien deportations and the security of our borders. Having no credibility whatsoever regarding those illegal immigration issues, none of their claims in that area can be trusted.

                Now, let’s address your source, the Pew Hispanic Center. The Pew Hispanic Center may be nonpartisan but that doesn’t speak to the political ideology of those who fund it and direct it. It is funded by and directed by the Pew Charitable Trusts which promotes and funds left wing causes. Hardly an “objective” source.

                “Pew exposed”

                “Wednesday, March 23, 2005″

                “Is there an organization more hypocritical than The Pew Charitable Trusts?
                The multibillion-dollar Philadelphia nonprofit has the unqualified nerve to list “Informing the Public” first among its three major areas of work. Pew bills itself as “a highly credible source of independent, nonpartisan research … information” on key issues and trends.”

                “But as the overpowering stench of its hush-hush hustle to fund federal campaign finance reform propaganda reaches the public’s nostrils, outraged Americans will hold their noses while referring to Pew as P.U.”

                “Sean Treglia, a former Pew program officer, bragged about the behind-the-scenes role played by Pew and seven other liberal organizations. The elite eight funneled 88 percent of the $140 million used to fool Congress, the White House and U.S. Supreme Court into believing the nonissue had substantial bipartisan support.”

                “Pew did not hide the fact it was supporting the ultimately successful attempt to limit free speech to a whisper before elections. But Mr. Treglia said Pew did everything it legally could to hide the $40.1 million donated to front groups.”

                “Congress must demand that Pew’s tax-exempt status be revoked for engaging in politics. And it must repeal this abomination to free speech. Otherwise, Congress cannot credibly claim it was conned if it continues acting like a co-conspirator.”

                http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_316077.html

                As you know, SCOTUS overturned major portions of McCain Feingold. Obama was so outraged about this that he inappropriately chastised the Court during a State of the Union Address.

                You can hear the story right from the mouth of Sean Treglia who, after leaving Pew, confessed all. I’ll post the links to the videos in the next post so that there aren’t too many links in one post.

              • Conservative American says:

                Start watching and listening to the video at 21:00 minutes. That’s when Sean Treglia begins to explain what Pew did and how they did it.

                http://rhsager.com/test/Tregliafull.wmv

                In the next video, you can hear Sean Treglia explain how Pew was almost caught red handed by George Will and how it escaped to successfully promote the passage of campaign finance “reform”.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNDazVUlIb4

                So the source for your statistics is a left wing group which sought to surreptitiously silence free speech just before elections through campaign finance “reform” crafted by McCain and Feingold. The fact that the progressive liberal, B. Hussein Obama, was exceedingly displeased with the fact that SCOTUS overturned major portions of McCain Feingold shows how important the unconstiutional portions of that legislation were to “progressive” Democrats.

              • I have no idea what you’re railing against.

                I don’t like Obama’s immigration policy, I just think it should be discussed honestly.

                He did oversee the doubling of the border patrol. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/10/barack-obama/obama-says-border-patrol-has-doubled-number-agents/

                He has set a record for deportations. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576639243590522156.html

                As for the Pew numbers, if you don’t like them as a source, I can give you dozens of others who reached the same conclusion independant of Pew.

                How abou this, I’ll cite the NYT citing the Center for Immigration Studies. Founded by the same racist eugenics advocate who backs Pearce, the SPLC can’t stand the CIS, so they should have some cred with you.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/31immig.html?partner=rssnyt

                Differant source from differant side of the spectrum, same result.

                “illegal immigrant population had dropped to 11.2 million, from a historic high of 12.5 million in August 2007. ”

                So, here we are, yet again, having proven that you made demonstratively false claims.

                Wash. Rinse. Repeat. DONE.

              • Conservative American says:

                ROFL! I’ve just been having a little fun with you, TC. You see, I know your habit of taking quotes out of context just so that you can score debate points. You have no interest in honesty whatsoever, LOL!

                Here’s what it said in the link to the Pew figures which YOU quoted and linked to:

                “11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants in U.S. in 2010, Report Says; No Change From ’09
                By JULIA PRESTON
                Published: February 1, 2011″

                “About 11.2 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States in 2010, a number essentially unchanged from the previous year, according to a report published Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.”

                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/us/02immig.html

                ROFL! That’s YOUR OWN link and it PROVES that the number of illegal aliens has NOT DECREASED AT ALL from 2009 to 2010! So Obama hasn’t been effective in reducing the number of illegals one iota in an entire year!

                Didn’t think I’d catch that, did you, LOL! I caught it because I know what you habitually do. You attempt to deceive and mislead SA readers, like a true liberal, by quoting things out of context and omitting what doesn’t fit with your arguments. THAT is why you don’t like to quote your sources or provide links. Busted clean yet once again!

                So the article from YOUR OWN LINK proves both that Obama hasn’t reduced the number of illegal aliens AT ALL from 2009 to 2010 AND it shows, once again, that you are not at all interested in “honesty”, you are only interested in appearing to win debates at any cost, even at the cost of deceiving SA readers!

                When are you going to learn, TC. You try to get away with this stuff and you get caught every time. Your credibility is completely shot, you’ve been caught so many times, LOL!

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

              • True Conservative says:

                You live in this bizarro world I don’t understand.

                You lied to us, said Obama hasn’t done anything to reduce immigration and were then shown how the facts prove otherwise.

                You then spend furiously scribble out several long, barely coherent rants about everything but the one remaining truth: you lied.

                Worse yet, you lied when you didn’t need to. I don’t care that you live in some imaginary world where George Bush was behind 9/11 and Obama is a Kenyan – I only care when your lies are at risk of being repeated by those who actually are in a position to forward the conservative agenda.

                As I stated several times, Obama has failed us on immigration, but when we start our complaint about him with a lie, the true part of our message is lost. That is what is meant by demonstratively false. The normal reader of the news hears or reads your bat-(*&^ crazy rant, considers what they already know, and then tunes you out.

                You may have some great ideas, but because you are compelled to think of the world as pure good v. pure evil, where anyone not joining you in the lunatic fringe of the far right-wing is a liberal, your message will never be heard.

                Hence, *PLONK* (BTW: show some sense, learn a little something about threaded discussions before whining about how PLONK is just wine … )

              • Conservative American says:

                I lied to you? ROFL! You have that backwards, TC!

                “11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants in U.S. in 2010, Report Says; No Change From ’09″

                “By JULIA PRESTON
                Published: February 1, 2011″

                “About 11.2 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States in 2010, a number essentially unchanged from the previous year, according to a report published Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.”

                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/us/02immig.html

                What is it that you don’t understand about the fact that the source which YOU quoted states unequivocally that there was NO reduction in the number of illegal aliens from 2009 to 2010?

                You, in your usual fashion, failed to share that above information which was in the article you supposedly read, quoted and linked to. How was it that you “missed” that? You didn’t “miss” it, you omitted it in a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive SA readers.

                Blab on all you want, TC, but you, yet once again, got caught red handed being purposefully disingenuous. That is your habitual and repeated behavior and you get caught at it every time. Perhpas, since you invariably fail in your attempted deceptions, you should try being honest with SA readers for a change.

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

              • True Conservative says:

                Now, now, Dear Child,

                You know I offered those facts to destroy your false claim that Obama was open border and because of him we were being overrun with illegals. We note that first you tried to deny the veracity of that information, and once proven that your protestations were as ill-formed as your initial deceits, you turn trying another path of mendacity, the misrepresentation of the arguments of others.

                My post remains valid: total illegal immigrants are down from the Bush era. Obama has overseen the doubling of boots patrolling the border and has set a record for deportations.

                In contrast, you seek to evade responsibility for your duplicitous posts.

                Obama has not done the needed work – and he needs to go – but when loons like GED Jane go out on the national stump claiming that Obama is open borders, has witnessed an unprecedented flood of illegals, refused to enforce the law and is gutting the border patrol, against all proof to the contrary, the conservatives lose.

                We lose because the nation knows those claims are false, and therefore anything that follows must also be false.

                You needed worry about such lost messaging: you predicated your argument with a lie, and then finished with another. There is rarely any truth in anything you post.

              • Conservative American says:

                ROFL! Give it up, TC. Let me, once again, demolish you feeble arguments.

                Let’s address your first crass misrepresentation:

                “My post remains valid: total illegal immigrants are down from the Bush era.”

                Absolutely false and your data does NOT support your statement. The source you cited said this:

                ““The population of illegal immigrants leveled off after peaking in 2007 at 12 million, then dropping sharply over two years to 11.1 million in 2009…”

                Who was in office from 2007 to 2008? Let me help you with that. It was George W. Bush and NOT B. Hussein Obama. So Obama may NOT take credit for that reduction because for half of the time period from 2007 to 2009 B. Hussein Obama was NOT in office. So much for that attempt to misrepresent.

                Now let’s move to the period from 2009 to 2010 when Obama WAS in office. During that period there was NO reducition in the number of illegal aliens living in the U. S.. The source which YOU cite says so:

                “11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants in U.S. in 2010, Report Says; No Change From ’09″

                “By JULIA PRESTON
                Published: February 1, 2011″

                “About 11.2 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States in 2010, a number essentially unchanged from the previous year, according to a report published Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.”

                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/us/02immig.html

                As usual, like a typical left wing liberal, you seek to distort, misrepresent, misinterpret and deceive SA readers. And, as usual, you have entirely failed in that. Don’t quit your day job, LOL!

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

              • TruConserv says:

                The very worst you can say about my three-pronged destruction of you assorted mendacity is that one of my citations – the one you initially decried as false until bludgeoned into sensibility – shows an evening of illegals during the Obama Administration.

                Fair enough.

                But given that it was offered to destroy the lie shared by you and GED Jane that Obama has led to a flood on illegals, it serves its purpose. It proves you lied. If we’re holding even, then we are not being flooded.

                The larger point remains – when we let liars such as GED Jane speak for us, our larger shared concern, that Obama needs to go, is lost.

                We also lose when we let wingnuts stomp their feet and hold their breath while WHINING LIKE A SCHOOLGIRL that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of their beliefs – including the belief in the birther, truther and black helicopter myths – is a liberal.

                In summary – true conservatives reject your lies and your myths.

              • Conservative American says:

                ROFL! The usual fare from TC when his clock has been cleaned, LOL!

                I’ve seen people do some irrational things but citing sources which actually disprove your arguments takes the cake, LOL!

                You attempted, yet once again, to deceive SA readers and, yet once again, you got caught red handed. Why don’t you try being honest for a change? Maybe you’ll get better results!

                You must have read the article you cited. You could NOT have missed the very first paragraph, Since that first paragraph refuted your arguments, you chose to omit it. Very dishonest, TC!

                “11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants in U.S. in 2010, Report Says; No Change From ’09″

                “By JULIA PRESTON
                Published: February 1, 2011″

                “About 11.2 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States in 2010, a number essentially unchanged from the previous year, according to a report published Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.”

                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/us/02immig.html

                There it is! Right from the source YOU chose to cite, LOL! Between 2009 and 2010, Obama didn’t reduce the number of illegal aliens living in the U. S. at all, LOL!

                You can rant, you can rave, you can call me names but NONE of that changes the FACTS, TC! Between 2009 and 2010, over the course of an entire year with B. Hussein Obama in office, the number of illegal aliens living in the U. S. didn’t drop at all. THAT is according to your own source, LOL! Brilliant!

                Don’t quit your day job, TC.

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

      • This is a far, far too reasonable argument, ConAm.

        MY GOD YOU’RE JON HUNTSMAN AREN’T YOU?!?!?

        :)

        • Conservative American says:

          Ugh! PLEASE, Klute! NOT John Huntsman, LOL! :- (

          I’m a registered Republican, Klute, because conservative Republicans represent my views far better than do Democrats. “Moderate” so called “Republicans”, better known as RINOs, don’t represent my views at all. I consider them to be anti-American sellouts.

          Clearly, Klute, there are some Republicans who seek to completely disempower American workers, leaving them to the not-so-tender mercies of greedy employers. That approach is a proven failure.

          On the other hand, we have labor unions, and the Democrats they support, who are seeking to move the country way too far to the left, IMHO. Karl Marx made it clear that he saw socialism as a stepping stone to communism. Even a cursory examination of communist regimes will suffice to prove that the reality of communism is the opposite of what it promises. So, where to go with this? Both positions are extreme and damaging to America.

          I see the ball as resting squarely in the court of Republicans. Republicans have the ability to deescalate this polarization of destructive extremes. It’s as simple as reasonably advocating for American workers.

          I’m not talking about doing damage to American companies. I’m simply talking about putting into practice the principle of enlightened self-interest. The success of capitalism depends upon employers realizing that they can’t simply seek to maximize profit. They must also take into account the best interests of America and her citizens. This is where the “One World”, mutinationalism enters the picture.

          When American companies no longer have any loyalty to America and American citizens, the entire concept of capitalism falls apart. This is what we are witnessing today. Too many corporations don’t have any loyalty except to profits. How America fares is not of the slightest concern to them. Capitalism was conceived to be nation based, not “One World”, multinationally based. That distortion of capitalism is what is harming America and it is precisely what is fueling labor unions and allowing them to promote a socialist agenda.

          Capitalism works IF it is applied as intended. When captialism becomes distorted, things become bad for Americans and they become open to hearing the arguments of socialists that capitalism is a failure. This is precisely what happened during the great depression. The monied class refused to give American workers a fair shake and so Roosevelt was forced to implement some social programs lest the nation go socialist or communist. It was prophylaxsis to prevent Americans from turning to the fasle promises of the socialists and communists. Had those programs not been put in place, the monied class may have ended up being stood against a wall and shot in a popular revolution.

          Republicans need to get smart. Remove the fuel and the fire goes out.

  3. Marty Smith says:

    Like the “independent” redistricting chairwoman Mathis

    or the “competitive: districts they drew up with a mix of “independents” – that Strategic just so happened to have the means to identify how these “independents” will likely vote

  4. TrueAmericanConservative says:

    All right- here we go again. “A vote for anything but an ultra-conservative, far-right Republican is a vote for anarchy, open borders, abortion, RINOs… fill in the blank…” What’s a moderate Republican to do these days?

    • Marty Smith says:

      join the democrat party where you belong

      • TruConserv says:

        Or perhaps the wingnuts could renouce their membership in the (r) party and stick with being Tea Party people.

        Interesting, isn’t it, that the Tea Party started as a complaint against the bail-out of the banks and wall street, commonly called the 1-percent. It’s the (T) that has a common ground with Occupy Wall Street, not the mainstream (R).

        • TEA Party
          T- TAXED
          E- ENOUGH
          A- ALREADY

          You really are totally misrepresenting it. Amazing how such a simple thing has terrified the Democrats so much they have to slime it and lie about it.
          “Telling” is the word, not “amazing.”

        • Conservative American says:

          You give yourself away, TruConserv. “Wingnuts” is a favorite term of the liberal left and frequently seen in places like Daily Kos, which is where you should be posting.

      • There is no “democrat” party. There’s a Democratic Party, is that what you’re referring to?

  5. Michael Bryan says:

    “amoral creatures”? Dehumanizing much?

Trackbacks

  1. […] Hell it doesn’t stop there.  All the Obama administration has to do is tell the Arizona Independent voter that Republicans take issue with Independents in general. Fear Mongering tactics are being utilized with regard to the Independent voter that you can see here. […]

Speak Your Mind

*